Editor’s note: James Lindsay is senior vice president and director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. This entry of Water’s Edge was first published here. The views expressed are his own.

The Republican National Convention that wrapped up last week made two things clear: foreign policy will be at best a secondary theme in the GOP push to unseat President Barack Obama, and when the Romney campaign does turn to foreign policy, it will be heavy on criticism and light on specifics about its preferred policies.

Foreign policy was a side note in Mitt Romney’s acceptance speech, coming late in his remarks and taking up only slightly more than one hundred words in a four-thousand-word address. He repeated his standard campaign talking points that Obama “has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear threat,” thrown allies like Israel and Poland “under the bus,” and been too eager to give Russian president Vladimir Putin “flexibility.” Romney was less specific about what he would do differently, saying only that he would give America’s friends “more loyalty” and Putin “a little less flexibility and more backbone.”

Just as important as the challenges that Romney cited are the ones he didn’t. He made no mention of Afghanistan (a war that has taken two thousand U.S. lives and that most Americans want out of), the rise of China (which could eclipse the American Century that Romney pledges to prolong), or the Arab Awakening (which carries the potential to remake peace and security in the world’s most volatile region).

Vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan offered even less insight into what a Romney foreign policy might look like. His 35 minute speech accepting the nomination offered only a one paragraph vow that “we will act with the conviction that the United States is still the greatest force for peace and liberty that this world has ever known.” He left it up to his listeners to decide how this would differ in practice from Obama’s foreign policy, if at all.

The GOP platform offers few policy details to fill in for the ones that the Romney and Ryan speeches glossed over. The platform’s multiple provisions run long on criticisms – some fair, some not – of Obama’s handling of foreign affairs, and they pledge that the GOP will stand strong on everything from terrorism to nuclear proliferation to cyberwar. (But not climate change.) The platform is largely silent, however, on what precisely Romney would do differently to keep Iran from getting the bomb, stop North Korea from peddling missile technology to the highest bidder, and halt the growing power of the Taliban. Nor does it say why his approach to these longstanding challenges would fare better than Obama’s – or George W. Bush’s for that matter.

The lack of foreign policy specifics probably won’t hurt Romney for now. Threats overseas are way down on the list of the public’s concerns. Voters are worried about jobs and the economy, not Syria and the South China Sea. Unless Obama can make an issue of Romney’s vagueness in the upcoming debates, voters may not even notice that the former Massachusetts governor has said far more about what he hopes to accomplish overseas than about how exactly how he will do it.

Staying away from the how to’s of foreign policy offers at least one blessing for Romney: he would not be hemmed in as commander in chief by campaign promises should he win in November. Bill Clinton came to regret, and eventually repudiate, his campaign pledge to oppose permanent normal trading relations with China. Obama ran smack into a host of political, legal, and diplomatic roadblocks with his vow to close down Guantanamo, managing to alienate both his opponents and his supporters in the process.

But leaving the foreign policy details to later means that Romney is losing the opportunity to build public understanding of the foreign policy challenges the United States faces – and that he might one day have to confront. That could make it far harder for a President Romney to govern. For now, however, that’s a cost that candidate Romney looks to be willing to bear.

As usual Romney;s speech was not deep enough explaining Medicare in detail,not explaining Foreign Policy in detail ,the Bugdet not in great detail ,etc.etc.etc.Only the Master Obama can explain EVERYTHING in great detail in 20 minutes. He's had 4 years to do it and still has not come up with anything that makes sense other than socialism. CNN have shame . No womder your color is RED.

In some of the comments I've read here, Obama's policies have been compared to socialism. That is simply not true. I don't see anything Obama is doing that is socialist - his commitment to the free market system is absolute. What I do see are policies meant to reign in excesses and abuses in the private sector: abuses that permit defrauding investors, destroying the environment, denying medical care to the sick, the list goes on. There is nothing Obama is doing that is dangerous or radical - simply common sense approaches to problems that threaten all of us.

Thats right nobody knows cause Nobody knows what he is about , will not release his tax returns ,wants to lower tax's on the rich, says we will be energy independant by 2012, How are you going to manage that, Mitt? What are you going to do mitt. besides making the Rich , yourself included , Richer . Are you really going to get rid of the EPA? Are you really going to bomb Iran. Can we afford another War of choice,

Trust me Orange Wedge , your all wet . Lets reward the party of No with the Presidency.

I'm going to start opening up some sewage treatment plants, coal fire power plants, and nuclear power plants right in the middle of some very expensive Republican neighborhoods. I know they'll be very friendly toward my free market businesses and would never want "evil big government" to do anything to interfer with private enterprise.

Elect me first, I'll provide the details of what I will do on (fill in the topic here) after I'm elected seems to be the overriding theme of the Romney campaign.

There apparently only two exceptions: 1) he wants to cut his own taxes, 2) he won't provide specifics of taxes beyond what he has already done (most of one year [incomplete on foreign investments/taxes/shelters] and a promise of providing the current year at some point in the future).

Since my other comment didn't pass muster....I'll come right to the point. I don't like Mitt Romney....I think he's like a bull in a crystal shop when it comes to diplomacy. On his recent trip to Europe he managed to make a lot of people angry. I will be voting for Barack Obama in November!!

Romney's foreign policy sounds more like a cold war agenda. Rather than going on about trade deficits he sounds like he wants to expand the war on whoever. He can't tell Putin what to do and Russia is not a bigger threat right now. He sounds more like he wants to fight China rather than ecnomically compete with them. Other countries have done significant changes economically like Brazil, Germany and among others yet the US does not seem to be on the right track. All we get is the same rhetoric from republicans and democrats over and over. Instead of coming up with big ideas we get propaganda.

Post a comment

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

About us

The Global Public Square is where you can make sense of the world every day with insights and explanations from CNN's Fareed Zakaria, leading journalists at CNN, and other international thinkers. Join GPS editor Jason Miks and get informed about global issues, exposed to unique stories, and engaged with diverse and original perspectives.